===============================================================
How to conduct an intellectual inquiry - where I stand


I want to return to the above because the “debate” over Reilly has gone off track and I have personally taken a good bit of guff. Here is an analysis of the argumentation:

-- A group of gun connoisseurs has stated that “historically” Reilly was known only as a retailer. Anyone challenging this view must “prove” that Reilly was more than this and this proof must be definitive.
. . . . . . .This is quite simply anti-intellectual to its core. It is “I am right and you are wrong until you prove you are not wrong” dogma. There is not one truly intellectual investigation of anything that can start off with the conclusion as a given.

-- The second group began this line with a plain statement of facts: “J.C. Reilly, a jeweler by trade, began selling guns at his shop at High Holborn sometime between 1826 and 1828." This type of observation is similar to the start of any philosophical or intellectual endeavor, noticing a fact and wondering "why?" "how?" "what?" Then the investigation, based on the evidence, illuminated over the course of 5 years of research:
. . . – what type of guns he sold
. . . – how many he sold
. . . – what was his business model
. . . – what other lines of revenue did the company pursue, etc.
. . . – the fact that he made guns as well as sold retail, wholesale, including what types, etc.
. . . – It identified his market and his customers
. . . - It dated the serial numbered guns, and the labels….etc.

. . . - ALL the source materials were original from the 19th century - early 20th century.....none were from secondary sources or "oral legend."
. . . - The source materials and research were published on this line every step of the way.


. . . . . . . .This intellectual exercise, the research into Reilly, did exactly what such an investigation was supposed to do and it was conducted in exactly the way it should have been. It started with a simple goal - to date the Reilly guns. It then followed the evidence and clues which were uncovered. And the history was finally written by putting these together in the most logical way possible. It was refined as additional information was found and per appropriate comments from peer review.

I cannot accept the proposition that “historically” Reilly was only a “retailer,” when there is absolutely nothing "historical" about that assertion. Nor should gun scholars and students of guns.

To sum up: This history is the most complete one on Reilly that is available. It’s conclusions are based on the best possible original-source, historical evidence and analysis. There are places where some facts are still unclear and awaiting additional information. But, that is the fundamental truth about this research and it is the way any intellectual exercise should be conducted.

Last edited by Argo44; 11/30/21 05:27 PM.

Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch